Whose life is it anyway? An exploration of five contemporary ethical issues that pertain to the psychiatric nursing care of the person who is suicidal: Part two
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This is the second of a two‐part paper which focuses on five principal issues/questions which can inform mental health nurses’ ethical discourse around the matter of suicide. This second part focuses on the questions: is there such a phenomenon as a rational or appropriate suicide? And what role, if any, should mental health nurses occupy in assisted suicide? We find that the relevant theoretical and ethical literature in this area suggests, at least for some, that there may very well be such a phenomenon as a rationale suicide, especially if the often cited myth that all people who complete suicide must ipso facto have a mental health problem, is scrutinized. Furthermore, the extant literature indicates that while for the majority of suicidal acts, mental disorders may be a necessary but not sufficient element; the suicidal process is not, however, synonymous with mental disorder phenomenology. Lastly, whether or not there is a role(s) for mental health nurses in assisted suicide is difficult to say because there is almost no indication in the literature that such views have been solicited and considered. Given mental health nurses’ often ‘front‐line’ involvement in care of the person who is suicidal, there is an urgent need to canvass these views and include them in the debate. Lastly, given the content of current mental health nurses Codes of Ethics and Professional Codes of Conduct, there may be a need to revisit these codes in light of contemporary and changing views of assisted suicide.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".